4G: Bad coverage, crap battery life - but at least it's really expensive (UK) | Hacker News Reader

4G: Bad coverage, crap battery life - but at least it's really expensive (UK)

theregister.co.uk

32 pointsgmac23 comments

My biggest concern with 4G is that it will move people from using static line ISP connections to using mobile connections for everything.

The problem with this is that mobile providers seem to be a lot more invasive when it comes to blocking content, leaking personal data and imposing restrictions on the use of the data service.

This will be limited by the costs. I get 5GB of monthly traffic for 10€/month on 21Mbps 3G (average speed: 4Mbps), but I get unlimited traffic at 150Mbps for the same price on a static line (average speed: 80Mbps). Cloud-based storage and services means I will do a lot of traffic, and this brings great costs for a mobile connection. Right now I'm backing up 1.8TB of data with CrashPlan. I couldn't do that on 3G.

Getting over 5GB on one SIM card at decent speeds seems to be almost impossible. Having rung around a lot on this, most UK networks say they'll only do it for video advertising boards next to motorways and such.

I suspect that this will be discouraged by a couple natural factors.

First is cost, as was already mentioned. Mobile networks are expensive to operate. I suspect that current bandwidth prices are artificially low because mobile carriers have an assumption that most users will use far less bandwidth than they're paying for built into their pricing structure. Significant numbers of people switching to LTE for their primary source of internet access would probably kill that strategy.

Second is bandwidth contention. I've seen what happens to WiMAX-based residential internet access services when they get popular. It's like what the iPhone did to AT&T's network in major metropolitan areas. I suspect that all of the mobile carriers will be very careful to make sure they don't let that happen again.

Until the standardised VoLTE software (Voice over IP for LTE) is working correctly aren't LTE phones all going to suffer from poor battery life thanks to having to keep both the LTE and the 3G radio on even in LTE capable locations?

£51 for 5GB of data, and unlimited voice and text. That's currently $82.

Compare:

$110 for 4GB and unlimited voice and text on Verizon & ATT, which includes tethering.

$90 for T-mobile's cheapest "4G" data plan, which is "unlimited" data, but not LTE, and has no tethering.

$80 for Sprint's crappy non-LTE coverage, but only 450 minutes of voice, and capped tethering. Otherwise $110 for unlimited everything, and capped tethering.

Sorry, but this must be a different definition of "really expensive" than I was previously aware of (hanging preposition be damned).

£51 for 5GB of data is expensive. I'm in the UK and on t-mobile I pay £17 per month for unlimited data (not 4G though), all calls and all texts (well there are limits, but for my moderate/heavy usage it's as good as unlimited) and those calls include some international.

And until this year, it also included a free handset, last one 20 months ago was a desire HD. So £10/GB does sound expensive.

Granted. When I was in the UK on business, I brought an old Google Nexus One, and was able to get sim-only prepaid 3G voice and data dirt cheap. It was slow, though (Vodafone).

I pay £7.50/month (+VAT which doesn't count as I'm VAT registered) for 5Gb on a data-only SIM with 3.

Not LTE, but seeing those prices and I'm not going to be changing any time soon.

Really expensive by UK standards. Of course the US have much higher prices along the line due to their uncompetitive mobile market.

I'm growing tired of data caps being measured on 'how long it would take you to download that amount of data'. Faster speed and lower latency are boons for less data intensive applications too.

My iPhone's on a 3G plan with a 500MB monthly cap at the moment. I never go over it, even though the good 3G coverage here is plenty fast enough for video streaming etc. - I just don't want to use it for that. I'd love a faster, lower latency connection, but I don't anticipate my habits changing such that the /quantity/ of data I consume increases.

Are you sure your data coverage is good? I've noticed that with sinking latencies and rising bandwidth (but probably mostly the latency), data consumption rises.

For me at least.

I couldn't place it on a scale or give you figures, but it seems good to me in use. I certainly never feel its stopping me from doing anything.

As well as browsing, maps etc., I also use it to listen to (low bandwidth, admittedly) radio streams while jogging and iTunes Match occasionally with no problems.

I've been using a tethered iPhone 4 as my only internet connection for 18 months now. 250gb of downloaded games (Steam), iPlayer, youtube, and general browsing later - I can't help but wonder what the point of 4G is?

I could play MMOs without issues, browse without concern, and generally enjoy a very low hassle internet connection all for not much more than line rental + normal broadband.

I see the future as being fewer and fewer wires. But not whilst mobile phone companies charge heavily for data.

Edit: To be clear I am on Three, and pay £35 a month for the phone + calls,text and unlimited tether. Uncapped broadband comes in at £20 a month minimum including line rental

My mobile consumption habits have changed since purchasing an iPhone 5 with LTE. Before I didn't use a lot of data, because it was too slow to consume a lot of data. With LTE downloading a web page for me is as fast as my laptop. So I find myself using it more.

Bad coverage in the UK? I live in the USA. For the past year, I've tried enabling 4g on my phone every time I go to a new city. I've never seen it work once.

Edit: In response to the dead reply "Even in the Bay Area?", since I can't seem to reply directly.

Yes, in all zero of the times I've been to the bay area, 4g has worked a total of zero times.

Maybe for an individual user "3g" is sufficient, but my understanding is that it is a poor use of spectrum. One big motivator to move to LTE will be in congested areas where everyone simply cannot be served sufficient bandwidth with the legacy technology.

Bad article, according to tests for example the iPhone 5 don't appear to have worse battery with let compared to the 4s.

The Register hates the iPhone (or loves the page view they get from hating it) so no surprises there.

What's really entertaining about your comment is that the linked article doesn't mention the iPhone even once.

Citation? AFAIK this is just Apple's claim, not a real test: http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/26/iphone-battery-life-grea...

I love how Apple locks down apps, but dislike how many taps it takes to toggle LTE.

> The iPhone 5 manages to match Apple's estimates, just breaking the 10 hour barrier.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/the-iphone-5-review/13

The iPhone 5 has a different battery, so who cares about that particular comparison. The issue is 4G vs. 3G on the same device, or similar devices. It's not like the 4s battery length is a golden standard where having more is pointless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com